Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

Requests for comment/Thekohser - user talk access

< Requests for comment

The following request for comments is closed. The local block is valid: unblock has been rejected multiple times, the last one being Meta:Requests_for_help_from_a_sysop_or_bureaucrat/Archives/2010-09#Thekohser; the unblock request is offtopic here. Local unblock on other wikis doesn't affect the block or block settings on Meta and related arguments are offtopic as well; if global contributions of the user have changed, unlock can be requested to stewards. If we stay on topic, there's consensus that restoring user talk access won't bring anything good for Meta or the user, given: block reasons; previous unblock requests, personal attacks and other edits to his own talk; expected usage of the talk page. The block will expire as it is. --Nemo 09:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request edit

The account of Thekohser was blocked for one year on March 25 by Jimbo Wales. Later on the same day, his user talk access was removed by VasilievVV for 'talk page abuse', apparently for this single edit: [1].

We have no way of knowing whether Thekohser's remark was correct but he should not have burdened Meta with it. However, it was surely just an emotional response to the events of that day, now half a year ago. Something that can and should be forgiven, and I am certain that he would now apologize for making that comment if only he had the chance.

Recently, I filed an unblock request as it seems that the block of March 25 was made in error: Thekohser's status of active user on several WMF projects (en:Wikiversity, en:Wikibooks, Commons) clearly proves that there is no global ban. It has already been established that the Meta community decides over Thekohser's status here.[2] Initially, some administrators thought it was out of their hands.

Because several administrators have expressed concerns about a possible unblock, it seems prudent to hear from Thekohser himself.

I therefore propose that Thekohser's user talk access is restored.

On the projects mentioned above, that helped him to (re)gain the trust of the local community, which would be the desired outcome here as well. And after all, access is the normal situation, even in the case of a long block. Best regards, Guido den Broeder 19:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments edit

  • There's little evidence that Thekohser changed his attitude towards the project. From my point of view, the events half a year ago are part of a long history of problems with this user. His user account was then globally locked – some unattached accounts not being locked is a technical detail and was not done deliberately. --Church of emacs talk · contrib 19:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Obviously, there is NO evidence either way, and there cannot be, since he cannot talk. Hence the request, this is exactly the reason why we keep user talk pages open. Guido den Broeder 19:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do hope you forgive me for playing Devil's Advocate, but:
    1. Why can't Thekohser use his talkpage elsewhere and have you link to it?
    2. Is the talkpage enough of a forum for his spreading whatever it is he's accused of spreading that it should remain blocked?
    3. Have we heard back from the Board yet in any meaningful (i.e. public and linkable) sense?
    4. I understand that on at least one project, the lock was bypassed via a rename-related trick. Is this something we want to encourage, or is it within the purview of bureaucrats to locally unlock locked accounts in this manner?
    5. Is Thekohser willing to abide by the former strict civility restriction that was placed and not yet lifted?
    6. What are the opinions of the other users here on these matters, as well as any unblocking (including email and talkpage enabling actions)?
    7. Do you see any situations arise other than the Board revoking the de facto "mostly global" ban that would render Meta user opinion irrelevant in the matter?
    Answers from both yourself and Thekohser would likely assist the community in deciding these matters. Thank you. Kylu 01:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Kylu, those are excellent questions, although some go beyond the scope of this page. I will attempt to provide some answers, but really we should give Thekohser the chance to reply himself.
    1. Most projects do not allow blocked users to use their talkpage. He does have talk page access at en:Wikipedia though, despite an indefinite block,[3] while his block here is finite. (Why he is blocked on en:Wikipedia remains entirely unclear, I see nothing that warrants a block. But that is another matter; I assume that he won't want to tackle that until other things have been cleared up.)
    2. Thekohser has not been accused of spreading anything specific, AFAIK. So far, Jimbo Wales is the only one who saw any 'cross-wiki issues'. He didn't say what they were, and remains silent. The question was put to Mike.lifeguard many times, as he was most active in blocking and reblocking Thekohser without consensus, but Mike never replied. Therefore, I see no danger whatsoever that could spring from restoring talk page access.
    3. Sj has explained that no reply from the board is forthcoming because the unblock request should be dealt with locally. From this is follows that we do in fact have jurisdiction.
    4. It is the lack of due process that encourages such actions, and no, that's not what we want to happen, since it causes confusion and irritation. Restoring talk page access, and following normal procedure in general, should easily prevent anything like that to happen here. Bureaucrats, IMHO, should make sure that normal procedure is followed, and educate administrators and others when necessary, rather than bypass it.
    5. I would assume so, but I recommend not placing any restrictions that are open to interpretation as they usually cause more disruption than they are intended to prevent. Instead, if you think it helps, I am willing to keep an eye on Thekohser's edits and caution him when necessary.
    6. Handling things in order is best, I think. His email rights have already been restored, reopening user talk access is what I am asking now. Since some users have expressed concerns, we should hear from Thekohser himself on his user talk page before the request to unblock is decided on.
    7. Short of Thekohser leaving voluntarily: no, we are to make our own decisions. Guido den Broeder 11:56, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore talk page access. Discussions of Thekohser easily stray into irrelevancies. Thekohser has stated elsewhere that Guido is acting on his own here, though Thekohser, in his remarks, indicates despair that any fair decision would be made at meta. I think he's incorrect. The restriction on talk page access was probably excessive, and Guido's comment is correct about Huib, Abigor, or whoever he is, being the wrong admin to make decisions in this matter. As the coordinating wiki for WMF projects, it is crucial that decisions here be transparent, and focused on serving the wikis (as well as WMF official decisions, by the Board) rather than attempting to govern them; in the matter of Thekohser, there has clearly been off-wiki decision making, violating Steward policy, as seen in the reason given with the global lock on this account. Shutting down Talk page access indefinitely, when there are lesser remedies that will serve and leave the door open for possible cooperative efforts, is contrary to transparency and service, and that unnecessary restriction should be removed, and only re-established, if needed, based on a clear necessity based on public argument and consensus. If anyone wants evidence for any of my assertions of fact here, it will be provided on request. --Abd 16:20, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Church of emacs: Thekohser's account was globally locked at the beginning of May of this year. However, it was apparently decided (off-wiki, AFAIK) to replace this with a series of local blocks, and Pathoschild went to the various wikis to locally block the user to establish a default that communities could undo if they wished. However, May 30, Mike.lifeguard, since retired, relocked the account based on "discussions." When asked, Mike declined to specify where the discussions took place or who participated in them. Pathoschild has stated that this global lock was not based on a steward consensus. The effect of the global lock was, at first, to create an impression of an actual global ban, and it was so argued at the various wikis when the issue came up. The global lock defeated the unblocking that had happened at a few wikis, so, again, the effect was to defeat local consensus, which is generally contrary to how stewards should act. It was then discovered that a local bureaucrat could delink the local account from the SUL, thus turning off the effect of the global lock and allowing a local decision to take effect. The request here does not ask for global unlock, but if the account were to be unlocked, because of prior steward actions, Thekohser would only be effectively unblocked on wikis where an admin has unblocked. Church of emacs is incorrect. Thekohser is only unblocked on the wikis where there has been a local decision to do so. On most, the delinking of the account from the SUL was deliberate, done by a bureaucrat, not merely some "technical detail." It may be that the status quo is just fine, for it requires a 'crat to unblock, thus protecting small wikis from possible disruption by allowing this critic of the WMF to function there without adequate supervision. But there is no global ban, Guido has been correct on that. --Abd 16:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. @Kylu. Good questions.
  • Why can't Thekohser use his talkpage elsewhere and have you link to it?
  • He can, if confirmation is needed; however, this should not be necessary. Thekohser could also send an email on request. However, transparency suggests that Thekohser should be able to make direct requests, unless there is overriding necessity to prevent disruption. Nobody is obligated to read his Talk page, and any editor may revert an inappropriate comment there. This is, after all, meta, with strong traditions of openness and tolerance. --Abd 17:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the talkpage enough of a forum for his spreading whatever it is he's accused of spreading that it should remain blocked?
  • Thekohser has access to far, far more effective fora for his criticisms. He is widely read on Wikipedia Review, and has a level of respect as a cogent critic of the WMF. He has his own moderately successful wiki, MyWikiBiz. My opinion is that he is sometimes intemperate, but that is irrelevant, except that it can sometimes justify blocks. Overall, though, the WMF is damaged when an appearance of inability to tolerate criticism is created. Rather, criticism that is out of place, in the wrong forum, is disruptive, and should be channeled to appropriate fora. Unfortunately, there is some tendency to attempt to prevent criticism or to punish it, which can be even more damaging than the criticism itself. --Abd 17:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have we heard back from the Board yet in any meaningful (i.e. public and linkable) sense?
  • Presumably if the Board has direction to provide, it knows how to do so. My own recommendation would be that the Board not touch this matter unless it sees irreparable harm being done. My assumption is that the Board does not want to be perceived as controlling the wikis, but rather that it supports (and needs!) community control of them, absent critical WMF interest. I very much doubt that the Board would even consider a motion to order either a Talk page unblock or a Talk page block. This is a meta decision, which should be made according to meta policy and the mission of meta. --Abd 17:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand that on at least one project, the lock was bypassed via a rename-related trick. Is this something we want to encourage, or is it within the purview of bureaucrats to locally unlock locked accounts in this manner?
  • It has been done that way on Wikiversity, Wikibooks, Wikinews, betawikiversity, and possibly accidentally on Commons and Wikisource. Every local wiki that has considered the matter, to find community consensus, has deliberately unblocked (except perhaps meta itself). Most global blocks or blacklists allow a local sysop to exclude the local wiki from the action. Global lock does not have that feature, and this could be considered a bug, because the purpose of the global locking function was for the prevention of vandalism. For meta to discourage this workaround would be a violation of the basic independence of the local wikis, and would reflect meta attempting to introduce a bias to local process. I very much doubt that a consensus could be found here to take this position. --Abd 17:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is Thekohser willing to abide by the former strict civility restriction that was placed and not yet lifted?
  • How about, with the unblock, placing a restriction on page use, a warning that violating specific civility restrictions will result in removal of the privileges? The unblocking admin, who should be neutral if possible, doesn't need to negotiate agreement for that. Just set the conditions and then enforce them. Whoever unblocks can reblock, simply undoing their prior action (recusal policy doesn't prevent that!). I can say from my own experience with this user, working as a sysop, that he will respect reasonable restrictions. He may defy unreasonable ones. The risk of actual damage is very low. --Abd 17:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you see any situations arise other than the Board revoking the de facto "mostly global" ban that would render Meta user opinion irrelevant in the matter?
  • I see the possibility of Board intervention on this as extremely remote. Meta has control over its own process, pursuant to the purpose of meta, as a coordinating wiki. I am concerned about a drift of decision-making here toward the making of decisions privately, off-wiki, and eventually the Board might be led to comment on this, but not about this specific case, I'd expect. --Abd 17:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have signed each of the responses above, separately, to encourage focused discussion on each issue, threaded underneath. --Abd 17:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Evidence. I see no evidence of Talk page abuse by Thekohser preceding the shutdown of Talk access. Looking back, the last possibly uncivil comment was [4], and I see worse than that here, not uncommonly, even on public pages. It was, after all, his Talk page. That was January 18. All his comments after that, on that page, were civil.
  • 04:07, 25 March 2010 Blocked for "cross-wiki issues." Notice that Talk page access was not blocked.
  • 14:21, 25 March 2010 His last edit to his Talk page. Civil.
  • 14:23, 25 March 2010 (... cannot edit own talk page) (Cross-wiki issues: Globally banned user; abusing talk page) This block was not based on abuse of the Talk page, and was unlike other blocks set WMF-wide, which allowed Talk page access specifically so that the user could negotiate unblock, see the block references on Global user manager.
  • My conclusion: there is no reason in the record to expect abuse of this Talk page. --Abd 19:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't much see any harm in it, but I'd feel more comfortable with a few more opinions on the matter. As it is, the majority of the Meta regulars, I think, are rather anti-Kohs, and by extension it's not likely that he'll be seeing talk page access. I could be wrong, of course. ;) Kylu 00:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In my opinion ending the block before its time has no likely benefit. It only results in wranglings like this. As far as I am concerned we do not need him and his ilk. Thanks GerardM 18:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody forces you to wrangle. Can we trust you not to wheelwar again when his talk page access is restored? Guido den Broeder 18:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concur with Gerald, and I've seen his several attempt to evade blocking (as anon, with a newly created sock etc.). This kind of disruption of blocked user doesn't deserve a restoration of the edit right generally. In the contrary I've met objections to show a tolerance to a blocked user who appeals in a wrong way and fora. I have no reason to show more a tolerance to that user in question beyond our accepted wisdom. --Aphaia 06:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Aphaia, has Thekohser made any attempts to evade this block at Meta? Has he made an appeal 'in the wrong way' at Meta? Do we even have a policy that puts a restriction on the manner of appeal? Would allowing talk page access not in fact prevent appealing 'in the wrong way' by enabling Thekohser to appeal 'in the right way'? Please consider that we are discussing a local block. Events elsewhere were judged elsewhere and still led to decisions to unblock, it is not the purpose of this RFC to second-guess those decisions. Thanks, Guido den Broeder 11:50, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support restoring talk page access per Abd and Guido den Broeder. We should not be afraid of legitimate criticism. If Greg abuses this, then we can deal with it then, but I don't think he will do that.

Responding to Aphaia's concern: if Greg socks elsewhere on this project in the future, we should revoke his talk page access. When Greg has something to say, he can use his talk page; he can be sure many people will be watching it. That doesn't mean he'll get the responses he wants to his comments there, but they will be read. With talk page access, Greg should have no future need of sockpuppets and anonymous IPs -- other than to disrupt Meta. Disrupting Meta would undermine the legitimacy of his arguments and just feed his critics' arguments. --A. B. (talk) 15:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Update A number of WMF wikis have unblocked Thekohser, who is under a global lock, to allow him any access requires a 'crat or steward to do the rename trick that delinks the account. He has not been disruptive where unblocked, to my knowledge. He is a critic of the WMF, but a certain level of criticism is healthy, and he seems to have toned it down, we have had no problems with him on Wikiversity. I continue to recommend his unblock (and unlock, for that matter, he was explicitly blocked on most or all wikis, precisely to set a default so the global lock could be removed, as it was, and I saw no discussion leading to the resetting of the global lock). Unnecessary blocks create an impression of bias and repression, and that is harmful. A ban or lengthy block should have consensus to block, not require consensus to unblock. Thanks. --Abd 02:56, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Requests_for_comment/Thekohser_-_user_talk_access&oldid=24950609"